Interesting debate about Batman's no-kill policy

[The Laughing Fish]

I found this user editorial on comicbookmovie.com about Batman's non-killing "moral code":

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/ImTheGoodGuy/news/?a=75847

I've seen a lot of people making conflicting arguments about how they're either in favor or against the idea of Batman killing. Some argue it would be logical for him to kill only the worst kind of villains (i.e. Joker and Zsasz) for the sake of saving lives, while others argue killing would only make him just as bad as the villains he confronts, regardless of the circumstances.

The problem I have with the moral code is it feels contrived. It was an excuse to ensure children could be allowed to read comics because of censorship back in the 1940s, while at the same time making sure that Joker and major villains never get killed off forever. A lot of fans argue that Batman's code separates himself from his enemies, and even use this to argue that it what makes him "human" and "relatable". It's all well and good if it's only for the sake of escapism, but the problem is the stories are becoming more violent, darker, humorless and even desperately trying to be "realistic". Unfortunately, black and white morality doesn't always work like that in real life. There are times when using lethal force is necessary if the circumstances are that dire, and unfortunately most Batman stories nowadays constantly remind me of that. There's got to be a better way to explain why Batman can't kill, without making him look reprehensible for keeping the worst killers alive at the expense of innocent people.

Thoughts? 

[thecolorsblend]

The thing that bothers me about the "it's what sets him apart from his enemies" BS is that it just doesn't make sense. Batman wears a mask; his enemies often wear masks. Batman commits B&E and even acts of robbery; so do his enemies. Call me crazy but Batman has a hell of a lot in common with them whether he kills or not.

Another thing is the supposed inhumanity of it. For starters, I've never understood how beating somebody to within an inch of his life with batarangs and karate kicks is somehow more "humane" than just snapping his neck and being done with it.

Invariably somebody will use the "Batman isn't the Punisher" straw man. Like any straw man, it presupposes that a Batman who is willing to kill must therefore rack up a body count similar to the Punisher's. I don't think that's the case. It's nothing to the Punisher to blow some purse-snatcher's head off. He would do that and sleep like a baby that night. But I can't imagine circumstances where Batman would ever do that. It's just unnecessary.

But even apart from all of that stuff, Batman takes the law into his own hands on virtually everything else. From the initial investigation of a crime to gathering evidence to interviewing witnesses to making arrests, Batman has no hesitation about doing almost all of the job all by himself. It therefore seems completely arbitrary for him to stop short of killing perps who deserve it just because "it would make him no better than they are". Um, from where I sit, he's already no "better" than they are, and that's whether we go by the number of laws broken or by the (lack of) morality underlying either of their methods. So what exactly is the problem with wiping out some murderous scumbag? I for one would have absolutely no problem with Batman using lethal force, if only against people who have taken lives themselves.

[The Laughing Fish]

The thing that bothers me about the "it's what sets him apart from his enemies" BS is that it just doesn't make sense. Batman wears a mask; his enemies often wear masks. Batman commits B&E and even acts of robbery; so do his enemies. Call me crazy but Batman has a hell of a lot in common with them whether he kills or not.

Another thing is the supposed inhumanity of it. For starters, I've never understood how beating somebody to within an inch of his life with batarangs and karate kicks is somehow more "humane" than just snapping his neck and being done with it.

Invariably somebody will use the "Batman isn't the Punisher" straw man. Like any straw man, it presupposes that a Batman who is willing to kill must therefore rack up a body count similar to the Punisher's. I don't think that's the case. It's nothing to the Punisher to blow some purse-snatcher's head off. He would do that and sleep like a baby that night. But I can't imagine circumstances where Batman would ever do that. It's just unnecessary.

But even apart from all of that stuff, Batman takes the law into his own hands on virtually everything else. From the initial investigation of a crime to gathering evidence to interviewing witnesses to making arrests, Batman has no hesitation about doing almost all of the job all by himself. It therefore seems completely arbitrary for him to stop short of killing perps who deserve it just because "it would make him no better than they are". Um, from where I sit, he's already no "better" than they are, and that's whether we go by the number of laws broken or by the (lack of) morality underlying either of their methods. So what exactly is the problem with wiping out some murderous scumbag? I for one would have absolutely no problem with Batman using lethal force, if only against people who have taken lives themselves.

I agree with everything above. I think the problem, though, is people want to have it both ways. They want darker stories where times are cynical, violent, and chaotic, but they still want to have a Batman who believes even the worst can be rehabilitated. I think this is because if Batman kills, then it reminds everybody how unrealistic it is that the police would work with a vigilante who is above the law.